HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Mr. H C Pathak, Advocate for the

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-wife as well as petitioner submitted affidavits disclosing their assets but the respondent-wife did not disclose the details of her bank accounts. In her cross-examination she admitted that she has three different bank accounts and also admitted that she is highly qualified having masters degree.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that when the petitioner filed interrogatories so that respondent could disclose her bank account details, the trial court erroneously held that interrogatories can only be filed in civil case and as 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings are criminal in nature, therefore, the law laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 regarding interrogatories is not applicable. The counsel for the petitioner submits that this is blatantly against the guidelines issued by Apex Court in para no.72.6 of Rajnesh (supra).

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in her counter affidavit submits that the present writ petition is 3 not maintainable as the petitioner could have challenged the impugned order by way of revision. She further submits that hyper technical arguments are being raised by the petitioner so that respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 could be deprived of maintenance.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After perusal of the material available on record and going through the relevant portion of Rajnesh (supra) passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that a complete disclosure of earnings is necessary and mandatory and the trial court has committed irregularity in holding that the guidelines pronounced by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are not applicable to 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings.

8. Relevant paras of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another are herein quoted below:- to serve

72.6. (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned.

9. It is noticeable that judgment of Rajnesh (supra) was delivered by the Apex Court in a case arising out of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance filed by respondents. Although in para no.72.6 (f) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, provision of CPC have been referred, but in the earlier part of the para 4 no.72.6 (f), it is directed that the aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories. It appears that the trial court got confused from later part of the para no.72.6 (f) which referred to provision of CPC. The purpose is to get clear information regarding the income of the parties to arrive at a judicious decision while fixing the amount of maintenance.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 22.01.2024, passed by learned Family Judge, Haldwani is hereby set aside and consequently the application dated 07.10.2023 (Paper No.45 Ga) filed by the petitioner is allowed. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.06.2025 5